Parties must be furnished with sufficient material by way of pleadings to enable them effectively respond to matters in contention between them. This cardinal rule of legal process was well articulated in the case of Captain Harry Gandy vs. Caspair Air Charter Ltd (1956) 23 EACA 139 as follows: “ The object of pleadings is of course to ensure that both parties shall know what are the points in issue between them so that each may have full information of the case he has to meet and prepare his evidence to support his own case or to meet that of his opponent .” 46. We therefore find that the Minutes sought to be relied upon by the Respondent do not form part of the Court record and, consequently, shall not be relied upon by this Court in determining the issue of limitation of time. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are satisfied that the Applicant got to know of the Commissions’ assumption of the UTC mall’s management on 2 nd October 2013 vide a letter to that effect that was duly annexed to the Reference as Annexure G. Since the
REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 23 Reference was filed on 22 nd November 2013, it was clearly within the 2-month time frame prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty. 47. We would therefore over- rule the Respondent’s Objection on limitation of time, and do answer this issue in the negative. Issue No. 3 : Whether the action of taking over the Applica nt’s mall by the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission is inconsistent with and/ or in contravention of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Treaty . 48. It was submitted for the Applicant that in assuming management of the mall and redirecting rental payments to itself without giving the Applicant the opportunity to be heard, the Commission did not follow due process and thus contravened Article 5(2) of the Treaty that calls for the enhancement and strengthening of partnerships between the Respondent and the Rwandan private sector. The Applicant contended that the arbitrary take-over of the Applicant’s property contravened the principles of good governance, rule of law, social justice and equal opportunities as enshrined in Article 6(d) of the Treaty. It was argued for the Applicant that the contravention of the foregoing principles also entailed breach of Articles 7(1)(a) and (2) of the Treaty. Finally, it was the Applicant’s contention that the Respondent’s arbitrary action defeated its undertakings to foster and promote the objectives of the Community or implementation of the Treaty as prescribed by Article 8(1)(a) and (c) of the Treaty. Learned Counsel for the Applicant cited this Court’s definition of the notion of ‘rule of law’ in the case of James Katabazi & 21 Others vs. The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda Reference No. 1 of 2007 , as well as Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 17 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in support of his submission that the Respondent’s arbitrary actions were a violation of the rule of law and the
REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 31 pages?
- Spring '16
- dickson chuma